Sanchez v. Alan's R E 99 Cents & Up Inc et al

Filing 41

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS: The Court has reviewed the record and, finding no clear error, adopts the well-reasoned R&R as the opinion of the Court. After Magistrate Judge Bloom filed her R&R, the parties submitted a revised settleme nt agreement, pursuant to the R&R's instructions. (D.E. # 40 .) The Court finds that the revised settlement agreement to be fair and reasonable, and approves the revised settlement agreement. IOrdered by Judge Carol Bagley Amon on 5/29/2018. (Fernandez, Erica)

m

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
X

PROSPERO JUSTO SANCHEZ,
Plaintiff,

-against-

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
ORDER

16-CY-I88I (CBA)
(LB)

ALAN'S R E 99 CENTS & UP INC., doing
business as 99 Cents, JENNY YANG'S R E 99
CENT STORE,doing business as 99 Cents,
LEUNG LING, and LONG YANG JIANG,
Defendants.
-X

AMON,United States District Judge:

Plaintiff Prospero Justo Sanchez brings this action against Alan's R E 99 Cents & Up Inc.,
Jenny Yang's R E 99 Cent Store, Leung Ling, and Long Yang Jiang to recover unpaid wages and
overtime compensation pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 201-19, and New
York Labor Law, Art. 6, §§ 190-99, and Art. 19, §§ 650-65. In January of 2018, the parties

informed the Court that they had reached a settlement, and the Court referred review of the
proposed settlement agreement to the Honorable Lois Bloom, U.S. Magistrate Judge, under
Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House. 796 F.3d 199, 206 (2d Cir. 2015). Magistrate Judge Bloom
submitted a Report and Recommendation("R&R")recommending that the Court grant the motion

to approve the settlement agreement subject to several modifications outlined in the R&R. (D.E.
#38.)

No party has objected to the R&R, and the time for doing so has passed. When deciding

whether to adopt a report and recommendation, a district court "may accept, reject, or modify, in
whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge." 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1). To accept those portions of the R&R to which no timely objection has been made,"a
1

district court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record." Jarvis
V. N. Am. Globex Fund. L.P.. 823 F. Supp. 2d 161, 163(E.D.N.Y. 2011)(internal quotation marks

and citation omitted). The Court has reviewed the record and, finding no clear error, adopts the
well-reasoned R&R as the opinion of the Court.
After Magistrate Judge Bloom filed her R&R, the parties submitted a revised settlement
agreement, pursuant to the R&R's instructions. (D.E. # 40.) The Court finds that the revised

settlement agreement to be fair and reasonable, and approves the revised settlement agreement.'
SO ORDERED.

Dated: MayM 2018
Broo^n,New York

s/Carol Bagley Amon

Carol Bagli
United Stafes Distriet Judge

'The Court notes a typographical error in paragraph 1(a) ofthe revised settlement agreement. Plaintiffs Counsel is
to receive $4,516.67 ofthe payment made in installment one. The revised settlement agreement mistakenly states
that Plaintiffs Counsel will receive $4,156.67. The Court finds that the revised settlement agreement is fair and
reasonable, and approves it with paragraph 1(a) modified to reflect the amount of $4,516.67.